Diospi Suyana is a nonprofit organization that provides first-class health care attention in a very poor area of Peru and two of its doctors were denounced for the commission of mal praxis for the death of a patient.
The patient, who was involved in a serious car accident, was referred to Diospi Suayana Hospital. The doctors of Diospi Suyana gave him the best attention and performed the surgeries needed to cure his fractures. However, because of the crash impact, he developed what is called “compartment syndrome”, which added to his previous medical conditions and caused him serious complications.
Since his medical condition was deteriorating, he was derived to the Main Public Hospital of Cusco so he could receive hemodialysis, however, after a few hours of being registered in the Hospital he passed away.
The patient´s partner filed a criminal complaint for mal praxis, arguing that the doctors didn’t have specialization and the patient should have been referred earlier to a different hospital.
In this case, the first prosecutor in charge was not impartial because she was close to some friends of the patient. Also, there was difficult to explain the medical terms and the specialization that each doctor had. Additionally, there was a lot of medical information to investigate and communicate to the prosecutor, for them to understand.
After years of investigation and an expert report that concluded that there was no mal praxis, the case was closed up until three times, but the Superior Prosecutor revoked these decisions to perform more investigation acts. Also, the Superior Prosecutor ordered for the investigation to be formalized, which implies that a later decision should be agreed upon by the Judge.
In the formalized investigation, more investigations acts were performed, and we presented several documents and our defence allegations. After that, the Prosecutor once again issue a request for dismissal. This request was analyzed in the Dismissal Request Hearing, in which both parties argued their position. Later, the Judge agreed to the dismissal and issued a resolution closing the case.
Since the patient´s attention left a debt not collected after more than four years, with the client, we proposed the other party sign an agreement where the Hospital agreed on not collecting the debt, and they agreed on not appealing the decision. The agreement was signed.
After the time for the appeal passed, the Judge issued a resolution confirming the closure of the case.
